XPost: sci.physics.relativity

I have explained, for a long time already, that there are most often, in science, two inappropriate attitudes. The first consists of not believing anything at all, the second consists of believing everything without using one's little gray cells (Hercule Poirot copyrights).
It is true that in most cases, teachers are right, and therefore one must believe them. But it sometimes happens that, dramatically, not clearly understanding the concepts they teach, or the words they pronounce, they
do more harm than good.
Sometimes, it is the very bases that are at fault. There are two concepts
that, in essence are not so bad, but which very quickly drift towards
stupidity and incomprehension. The first is the principle of special relativity, the second the apprehension of complex numbers. Each time, as
if by intellectual gravitation the human mind not of a few men, but of all
men will go astray.
Let us take the example of the theory of relativity taught by Poincaré, everything that Poincaré says is correct, everything that Einstein adds
to it is false.
Let us take the example of complex numbers, what mathematicians say about
how to solve a quadratic equation without real roots is correct, but,
beyond that, everything becomes false and ridiculous.
In this the proofs abound, but we do not want to see the proofs.
Why?
Because human narcissism is such, and the trust that men have in other men
so strong, that it is absolutely impossible in practice to correct even an obvious and gross error if it has been accepted for centuries.
Ask a fanatic Muslim to question his Koran, and what will you notice? He
goes mad. They are his knife.
It is the same with physicists and mathematicians all over the world. 99%
of their science is right, but point out where it is dark and ridiculous,
and you will be mocked, hated, threatened, ostracized.
I have pointed out two enormous problems in science, not located in inaccessible places, but in two places known to all those who have at
least a high school diploma.
One consists in explaining the enormous confusion that physicists make
between the relativity of time, and the relativity of chronotropy, a
source of immense generalized misunderstandings; the other in the very
nature of the imaginary number i, which everyone uses, but with the
greatest incomprehension of what it really is. We limit ourselves to
saying that it is such that i²=-1. Which is not wrong, but which is
immensely far from the correct definition, which has the effect of a slap,
so extravagant does it seem to the mathematician. "the imaginary number i
is that being which, in its being, is such that whatever the exponent x
that is assigned to it, i^x=-1. A very clear definition, but which makes
all of humanity tremble with fear, rubbing its eyes at the evidence, and
cannot believe that it sees what it sees.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/22/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

I have explained, for a long time already,

"I cut it three times! And still it's too short!"

It is true that
in most cases, teachers are right,
and therefore one must believe them.
But it sometimes happens that,
dramatically,
not clearly understanding the concepts they teach,
or the words they pronounce,
they do more harm than good.

It is sad but also true that students,
those with most need to know when teachers are wrong,
are often the ones least able to judge
who is misjudging concepts,
their teacher or themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
⎛ The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which
⎜ people with limited competence in a particular domain
⎝ overestimate their abilities.

Let us take the example of
the theory of relativity taught by Poincaré,
everything that Poincaré says is correct,
everything that Einstein adds to it is false.

In this the proofs abound,
but we do not want to see the proofs.
Why?
Because human narcissism is such, and
the trust that men have in other men so strong,
that it is absolutely impossible in practice
to correct even an obvious and gross error
if it has been accepted for centuries.

You have proven that Einstein's ideas
were never accepted. That seems to be
more than a little in disagreement with
the world around us.

By the way, Einstein had a thorough understanding
of Newtonian physics. He had listened to his teachers.

I am reminded of the fox in Aesop's fable,
who could not reach the grapes he saw and wanted.
Because he could not reach them,
he decided that they weren't worth reaching.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 23/02/2025 à 01:59, Jim Burns a écrit :

You have proven that Einstein's ideas
were never accepted. That seems to be
more than a little in disagreement with
the world around us.

By the way, Einstein had a thorough understanding
of Newtonian physics. He had listened to his teachers.

I am reminded of the fox in Aesop's fable,
who could not reach the grapes he saw and wanted.
Because he could not reach them,
he decided that they weren't worth reaching.

I like parables and allegories.
Except that here, the allegory is rather poorly done.
Doctor Richard Hachel is not a fox who looks at grapes,
and who, not being able to reach them, says that they are not good.
He is an eagle who, having seen them from afar, tasted them for forty
years, and who says: "There are excellent vines in this vineyard, but
there are rotten vines, I know it, I have tasted them".
You do not seem to understand (but it is a general rule) that I never
attack an idea without having first understood that there was a problem
with it.
All the rest is just the arrogance of my opponents who criticize my ideas without having first heard them.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)